The following is a critique of an
article by Andrew J. Snelling (2008) entitled: “Catastrophic Granite Formation: Rapid Melting
of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusion and Cooling.”See:link.There are a number of statements in his
article that make it possible for him to claim scientific legitimacy for his
young-earth model for the origin of granite, but I certainly do not support
most of his statements from my perspective and the geologic studies that I have
done (Collins, 1988, 1997; Hunt, et al., 1992).

On page 12,
he says:“Because we don’t observe
granites forming today, debate has raged for centuries as to how granites
form.”

So, is anyone at the earth’s
surface capable of seeing granites form at depths of 3 to 5 km?Who is he trying to kid?Likely granite magmas presently exist
underneath the CosoRange
in California which has “recent” rhyolite
and obsidian flows (the volcanic equivalents of granite) as surface exposures
and several hot springs that carry
off some heat from the underlying magma (Wood and Kienle, 1990).Likely granite magma also underlies the Long
Valley caldera near Mammoth, California, because large amounts of carbon
dioxide emerge from cracks and hot springs there and because of nearby obsidian
domes and large volumes of rhyolite tuff (USGS).Who is to say that these underlying granite
magmas are not forming today?But, of
course, Snelling would say that these granites are just left over from creation
during the Genesis Week and are not being created today.

On page 12,
he says:“Nevertheless, the conventional
wisdom has been adamant until recently that granites take millions of years to
form, which is thus an oft-repeated scientific objection to the recent
year-long global Genesis Flood on a 6,000-7,000 year-old earth as clearly
taught in the Scriptures (Strahler, 1987; Young, 1977).”

I agree that this has been the conventional
wisdom.

Then, the bulk of Snelling’s article
cites literature in which more rapid emplacements of granite plutons and fast
crystallization rates have been postulated by some modern granite
petrologists.The assumption is also
made by Snelling that these same granite petrologists insist that all
granite bodies of large size must be formed from magma, and this assumption is
also true.Therefore, he continues to
promote the idea that all granite bodies of large size must be formed from
magma.Because of the modern literature,
he is free to say that the creation of the earth can possibly occur within
6,000 to 7,000 years and (1) that an accelerated rate of decay of uranium must
occur to generate the necessary heat to produce large volumes of granite magma,
(2) that rapid rates of emplacements of granite magma are possible, and (3) that
accelerated rates of cooling can occur to cause the granite magmas to solidify.Snelling does not dwell on the fact that
accelerated rates of erosion must also occur to expose the granite bodies in
the Sierra Nevada, but that is an issue that he avoids although I am sure he
cannot cite any scientific literature that says that such rapid erosion of a
possible 1-3 km-thick cover on granite by streams and glaciers can occur in
less than 7,000 years or that the formation of four sequential continental ice
caps can form on the North American continent and disappear in less than 7,000
years.The mountain glaciation of the
Sierra Nevada must have occurred during the four continental ice ages, and he cannot
justify that these ice ages can be condensed into 7,000 years if he uses any
scientific laws (1) to precipitate sufficient snow to form the great
thicknesses of ice that covered Canada four different times such that each flowed
down into northern United States and (2) to cause these ice masses to melt
rapidly after each ice cap was formed and within 7,000 years (total) unless he
postulates blow-torch climates during this short time.

Evidence against all granite bodies being formed from
magma

It is true that the conventional
wisdom postulates that all granite bodies of large size are crystallized from
magma, but that opinion is likely to change because of a recent
publication:

Large granite bodies in Finland,
Sweden, and Brazil
and in the San Marcos batholith
near Temecula, California
(in some places extending for several hundreds of square kilometers), are
commonly pink.Conventional wisdom is
that the pink color is due to tiny hematite (iron oxide) crystals (several
thousand per cubic centimeter) which occur in high-temperature potassium
feldspar crystals formed by crystallization from magma.The red hematite that makes the feldspar pink
has been theorized to form by exsolution of ferric iron ions (substituted for
aluminum ions) in the lattices of high-temperature potassium feldspar crystals
so that the iron atoms separated from the lattices at lower temperature and
formed their own separate crystals of iron oxide.Andrew Putnis
found that this exsolution model is not correct.The results of his studies and those of
co-workers are reported in the above paper.In the field, gradual transitions can be seen to occur between dark plutonic
rocks (such as diorite) and light-colored pink granite.These transitions between the two rock types
were studied by using transmission electron microscopy which enables the
observer to see what happens in a crystal on an atomic scale.Andrew Putnis
and his co-workers observed that plagioclase in diorite was microfractured and that
fluids had come in and removed some calcium, sodium, and aluminum from the
lattice to leave holes in the altered plagioclase crystal.In parts of some altered plagioclase crystals,
these investigators observed that potassium had come into the holes and
recrystallized the plagioclase as potassium feldspar, replacing the former sodium
and calcium with potassium.In some
places holes were still left in the lattice of the potassium feldspar, but now
the holes were lined with tiny hexagonal crystals of red hematite.On that basis, some iron was introduced into
the altered plagioclase crystals by the same fluids that brought in the
potassium.Thus, these investigators observed
how solid diorite was converted into granite by chemical replacement
processes.All the textural changes that
I have been describing for 35 years in granites that were formed by chemical replacement
processes in other localities occur in these pink granites, including the
formation of myrmekite.Because of these data, Andrew
Snelling can no longer say that all granite bodies of large
size must form from magma.

Evidence against the model that Po halos indicate
nearly instant formation of the earth during the Genesis Week

Concerning Po halos, Andrew
Snelling says, page 20:“Nevertheless, because of the very short half-lives of these three
polonium radioisotopes that necessitate their rapid hydrothermal fluid
transport to generate the polonium radiohalos within hours to a few days, it is
estimated that the granites also need to have crystallized and cooled within
6-10 days, or else the required large quantities of polonium (from grossly
accelerated decay of uranium) would decay before they could form the polonium
radiohalos (Snelling, 2005; Snelling and Armitage, 2003).Such a timescale for crystallization and
cooling of granite plutons is certainly compatible with the biblical timescale
for the global Flood event and for earth history.”

It is true
that large crystals of biotite and feldspars can grow rapidly within hours or
days where large amounts of water (steam) are available to facilitate quick movements
of silica and other ions in solution to nucleation sites.Such rapid growth would enable Po
isotopes to crystallize on faces of growing biotite crystals.But it is not true that such growth is
limited to less than 6,000 to 7,000 years.That is, it cannot be said that very rapid crystallization of a host
granite of magmatic origin is necessary merely because (1) Po isotopes have
short half lives (3 minutes, microseconds, and 138 days), and (2) there would
not be enough radioactive Po left in the residual fluids if long cooling times
for granite magma were required.If the
granite hosting the Po-halo-bearing biotite is formed by chemical replacement
processes in solid rocks that are deformed instead of being formed by
crystallization from magma, (1) the deformation opens up the system for
movement of potassium to make the potassium feldspar that converts a former
magmatic but solidified rock into granite, (2) the scattered uranium atoms can
be extracted from ferromagnesian silicate minerals that are being replaced by
quartz and this uranium can form local concentrations in ore deposits, (3) radon
(an element that is a gas, inert, and released from the radioactive uranium) can
move readily from large volumes of deformed rock and be concentrated in
relatively low pressure sites (fractures), and (4) polonium ions produced from
zillions of these radon atoms in these low pressure sites can migrate in fluids,
nucleate in biotite, and produce the Po halos.All of this can occur over thousands of years because deformation and
replacements can occur over thousands of years and because chemical
replacements to produce granite are not necessarily fast.The system must be open and be repeatedly kept
open because replacements and recrystallization could eliminate the openings.At any rate, the formations of some large granite
masses and Po halos do not necessarily happen in the
ways postulated by Andrew Snelling.

It is likely that the Po halos in
biotite that Gentry (1986) illustrated in his book “Creation’s Tiny Mystery” did
form relatively quickly in large crystals of biotite in calcite dikes (Wakefield,
1988a, 1988b). The dikes occur in fractures that were opened to allow abundant
water (steam) and carbon dioxide to come in with calcium and other ions to form
the calcite and facilitate the rapid crystal growth of biotite “books” coexisting
with the calcite.The association of
betafite (a complex uranium oxide) in the calcite dikes provided an immediate
source of zillions of radon (Rn-222) atoms.The Rn-222 is the precursor for the Po isotopes
and subsequent Po halos.The immediate proximity of uranium and zillions of Rn-222 atoms allowed even
the formation of Po-214 halos even though the Po-214 has a half life of
micro-seconds.Significantly, calcite
does not form by magmatic processes that occur during the solidification of a
granite melt.So, Andrew
Snelling has ignored this detail.Some of the Po halos were
not even formed in granite at this locality but in biotite in calcite dikes.Moreover, the adjacent granite is in Canada,
is Precambrian in age, and has both myrmekite and pink hematite-bearing
potassium feldspar crystals like those described above in Finland, Sweden,
Brazil, and California (Putnis, et al., 2007).

In terranes in which
Po-halo-bearing biotite does occur in granitic rocks, the rocks also contain
myrmekite, exhibit deformation, and contain nearby uranium concentrations.But the Po
halos
commonly are in the small biotite crystals that are part of the crystalline
mass of the granite, and the biotite generally contains only Po-210 halos.See Fig. 1.Note the fracture cutting through the biotite and the pleochroic halo
damage caused by millions of Rn-222 atoms decaying and sending out alpha
particles into the biotite lattice.The
radius of damage caused by alpha particles ejected during the Rn-222 decay is
about the same radius as that of the Po-210 halo.Because radon is inert, it does not nucleate
anywhere and is free to move through the fracture without hindrance.Because the Po-214 isotope has a half life of
micro-seconds, there is not sufficient time for 1010 atoms of the
Po-214 atoms to nucleate at a particular site in the biotite lattice to make an
isolated visible halo, whereas the Po-210 isotope has a half life of 138
days.Therefore, large amounts of Po-210
can nucleate at a particular site and make a visible halo.

Significantly, large granite masses
that are formed solely by magmatic crystallization processes and which do not
contain nearby concentrations of uranium do not contain any Po-halos in
biotite.This observation also applies
to granite pegmatites even though large crystals of biotite, feldspar and
quartz in pegmatites likely formed by rapid crystallization (days or weeks).

At any rate, the formation of Po
halos and large granite bodies by chemical replacement processes are consistent
with their creation by natural processes during long periods of time without
requiring miraculous events to occur.

Other evidence against Snelling’s model

Furthermore,
Snelling’s model does not take into account magmatic rocks other than granite
such as granodiorite, diorite, or gabbro which crystallized at high
temperatures (800 to 1,000ºC) in comparison to granite (550ºC).Therefore, more heat would be needed to
produce their magmas, and much longer cooling and crystallization histories of
these former rocks would have had to occur before solidification.Presumably, this time would also have to be
squeezed into the 6,000 to 7,000 years during which time the earth was
supposedly formed.Moreover, Andrew
Snelling does not mention the many different igneous plutonic rock types that
occur in the Precambrian that underlie the “Flood deposits.”Presumably, these other intrusive igneous
rocks that are older than the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic intrusive
granitic plutons were formed nearly instantly on Day Three of the Genesis Week
and also had extremely rapid events of melting, emplacement, cooling, and
crystallization.

Andrew Snelling
says, page 19: “Of course, granitic
magmas rapidly emplaced during the Flood would have been intruded into sedimentary
strata that were still wet from just having been deposited only weeks or months
earlier. Furthermore, complete cooling
of such granitic plutons did not have to occur during the Flood year.”

Although Andrew
Snelling says that granite bodies can intrude the sedimentary
rocks deposited by the Flood, he avoids the problem that many sandstones and
conglomerates in the “Flood deposits” near the Sierra Nevada
granitic rocks contain eroded boulders and fragments of granite that came from
the Sierras.So, how can such eroded
boulders be possible if the granitic rocks in the Sierra Nevada
plutons are being intruded into the Flood deposits as magma?Evidence for these intrusions of granite magma
into sedimentary rocks includes the remnants of fossils in the metamorphosed
wall rocks.

Robert Gentry also found Po-210
halos in petrified wood in Triassic, Jurassic, and Eocene sedimentary rocks in the
Colorado Plateau.If this wood were deposited during the
Noachian Flood, why does it not contain carbon-14 (C-14) and give C-14 age
dates of less than 10,000 years as are measured for wood in bristlecone pines
in the Panamint Range of California, whose C-14 ages correlate with the same chronological
ages in their growth rings?If
Snelling’s model is correct about the formation of Po
halos, should not the age of the wood in the “Flood deposits” in which the Po-210
halos occur give evidence in support of his model?

It is true that some granite masses
result from the melting or partial melting of sedimentary rocks whose chemical
compositions are the same as that found in granite (Wiebe, 1996) , but there
are many large granite masses that are formed by magmatic differentiation, a
process that Andrew Snelling ignores.

If heat
were generated by an early accelerated decay of U-238 (prior to the Flood) to
produce granite magmas, then this greater decay implies vast amounts of U-238
that should have produced very large quantities of the stable Pb-206
isotope.Where are the large quantities
of this Pb-206 that would provide support to Snelling’s model?

Other considerations

There is no
scientific evidence that supports the model of the creationists that
accelerated nuclear decay occurs (Humphreys, 2000; Vardiman, Snelling, and
Chaffin, 2005) or that it is possible that catastrophic plate tectonics (Austin
et al., 1994) can occur to drive the mechanism of the Flood event, although Snelling
includes these additional references and models in support of his model.Also, although modern granite petrologists
suggest that rapid melting, emplacement, cooling, and crystallization of
granite magma are possible, the rates that these petrologists propose for all these
processes in no way approach the speeds at which Snelling says must happen.But, of course, all that Andrew
Snelling needs is his belief in the literal interpretation of
the Bible to make granite bodies form during the Genesis Week and in less than
7,000 years.In science, we generally
need better evidence than personal belief.The above critical analysis of his article suggests that Andrew
Snelling has not considered all the available data that need
to be taken into account to make his model valid and that he has not properly
considered the full complexity of issues that have a bearing on his proposed
young-earth model. Also, the evidence provided by Putnis et al. (2007) that not all large granite masses are magmatic in origin and the fact that Po halos can be created by natural processes indicate that the conclusions by the RATE team (Vardiman et al., 2005) for a young earth model are false.